跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.14027 · v1

Software Refactoring Research with Large Language Models: A Systematic Literature Review

首次提交 2026-11-10 20:57
版本更新 2026-11-10 20:57
雷达观测 2026-11-11 11:04
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Background: Code refactoring is the improvement of code internally without changing the external functionalities of the program. Due to its exhaustive nature, developers often avoid manually refactoring code. Researchers have since looked into utilizing LLMs to automate the task of refactoring. Aim and Method: Despite the promising results, there is a lack of clear un- derstanding of LLMs' effectiveness in automated refactoring. Result: From our literature review we found that: (i) there are various tools that different studies use to enhance and study LLM-driving refactoring, with tools that were used to detect code smells, generate code bases, and compare refactoring outcomes. (ii) Various datasets were collected from multiple open- source projects in multiple programming languages for analysis. These platforms included GitHub, Apache, and F-Droid, with the most popular language collec- ted and analyzed being Java. (iii) One-Shot, Few-Shot, Context-Specific, and Chain-of-Thought prompting methods have been shown to be the most effective depending on the language used. In some instances, being capable of reducing code smell by up to 89%. (iv) The definition of "accuracy" varies significantly across the literature surveyed, as this depends on the context of the study, thus calling for a need to have a standardized measurement for Accuracy. (v) The most often mentioned code smells were Large Class and Long Method, with a lot of studies also not specifying, while the most often applied refactoring type is Extract Method, showing promising results in using LLM to perform this refactoring type. (vi) When working with LLMs, they often generate erroneous code, struggle with more complex refactoring, and often misunderstand the developers' requests and miss refactoring requests.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-10 20:57 · 最新观测版本

Software Refactoring Research with Large Language Models: A Systematic Literature Review

Background: Code refactoring is the improvement of code internally without changing the external functionalities of the program. Due to its exhaustive nature, developers often avoid manually refactoring code. Researchers have since looked into utilizing LLMs to automate the task of refactoring. Aim and Method: Despite the promising results, there is a lack of clear un- derstanding of LLMs' effectiveness in automated refactoring. Result: From our literature review we found that: (i) there are various tools that different studies use to enhance and study LLM-driving refactoring, with tools that were used to detect code smells, generate code bases, and compare refactoring outcomes. (ii) Various datasets were collected from multiple open- source projects in multiple programming languages for analysis. These platforms included GitHub, Apache, and F-Droid, with the most popular language collec- ted and analyzed being Java. (iii) One-Shot, Few-Shot, Context-Specific, and Chain-of-Thought prompting methods have been shown to be the most effective depending on the language used. In some instances, being capable of reducing code smell by up to 89%. (iv) The definition of "accuracy" varies significantly across the literature surveyed, as this depends on the context of the study, thus calling for a need to have a standardized measurement for Accuracy. (v) The most often mentioned code smells were Large Class and Long Method, with a lot of studies also not specifying, while the most often applied refactoring type is Extract Method, showing promising results in using LLM to perform this refactoring type. (vi) When working with LLMs, they often generate erroneous code, struggle with more complex refactoring, and often misunderstand the developers' requests and miss refactoring requests.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗